Actually yes, going from the last gen top end of video cards to the next gen top end would be a less noticible improvement than going from a spinning hdd to an ssd.

Click to expand...

Really, what kind of framerate boost are people getting from an SSD? Programs and games on my rig already launch in under 10 seconds, so an SSD shaves a few seconds off that, and that is a noticeable difference? No, it isn't.

Sorry, going from 45FPS to 60FPS certianly is more noticeable than the game's loading screen being 5 seconds shorter and Windows booting 15 seconds faster. And yes, those are actual time difference I measured on my rig when it had an SSD in it compared to the Seagate 7200.12.

If I had $150 laying around, an SSD would not be what I would spend it on, they aren't worth it. At this point, I'd probably just save the $150 actually.

I have tried SSDs, several of them, never found the cost worth it at all.

And yes, if I had $150 to spend, I'd sell my current card and put the $150 towards a replacement.

Really, what kind of framerate boost are people getting from an SSD? Programs and games on my rig already launch in under 10 seconds, so an SSD shaves a few seconds off that, and that is a noticeable difference? No, it isn't.

Sorry, going from 45FPS to 60FPS certianly is more noticeable than the game's loading screen being 5 seconds shorter and Windows booting 15 seconds faster. And yes, those are actual time difference I measured on my rig when it had an SSD in it compared to the Seagate 7200.12.

If I had $150 laying around, an SSD would not be what I would spend it on, they aren't worth it. At this point, I'd probably just save the $150 actually.

Click to expand...

You must be getting old. Old people have a lot of patience (really old one).

Follow up to what i said in the last page:

With a $250 VGA card, gtx 560ti for example, can play any game out there with max setting @1680x1050/1920x1080 with an exception of VERY few games that can't.

I'm pretty sure the majority of us spend out time browsing webs and using programs which an SSD will actually matter more even just by the seconds. Smartphone users will probably understand what I mean here.

SSD will affect all your programs, while a VGA card will only make games faster. I don't think the majority of us play games all day to live.

Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I think my points fit the majority of gamers with average budget that want to get the best bang for their buck.

Advertisement: Intel 330 Series 120GB with 500/500 read/write for less than $150 @ google.com!

Are u talking about selling ur current hardware plus adding some money to buy a new video card?

You should try an SSD before actually criticize it.

Click to expand...

If you have a gaming rig, SSDs don't do anything for you in terms for FPS performance. Only load times, and right now games on a normal mechanical drive load fast enough. You must be like 10 years old if you cannot wait 10 seconds for a game to load. I only have an SSD to Windows and all my games and everything else is on a mechanical.

I was a non-believer in the performance difference SSDs supposedly gave until I got my Performance Pro 256GB- fast boot and shutdown, program installs are insanely fast, programs load near instantly, MSE scan times are 3-4x faster, and the list goes on. I agree that if you have a good all around system and want to up your system performance/response time, buy an SSD.

And why is that? I remember paying ~€200 for a low end 4GB drive. I remember 64MB USB sticks costing nearly €100. You get 2GB sticks for free nowadays. SSDs will get larger and larger and thus price per GB gets lower, it's simply how things work.

Click to expand...

Because of the size of an electron. Magnetism will always be more compact.

I am glad to see the prices drop though. Maybe a sweet 256 GB is in my future....

Click to expand...

I have an Agility 2 90GB 3.5 inch version super solid and reliable for over a year. Still have plenty of space left and cannot justify buying a new one. And lol at the guy saying a new graphics card is better to have than an SSD. Not all of us play games 24/7 maybe you should check out the ssd vs hdd comparos on youtube. Responsive system > an extra 10 fps that i could achieve by adjusting some sliders.

You must be getting old. Old people have a lot of patience (really old one).

Follow up to what i said in the last page:

With a $250 VGA card, gtx 560ti for example, can play any game out there with max setting @1680x1050/1920x1080 with an exception of VERY few games that can't.

I'm pretty sure the majority of us spend out time browsing webs and using programs which an SSD will actually matter more even just by the seconds. Smartphone users will probably understand what I mean here.

SSD will affect all your programs, while a VGA card will only make games faster. I don't think the majority of us play games all day to live.

Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I think my points fit the majority of gamers with average budget that want to get the best bang for their buck.

Advertisement: Intel 330 Series 120GB with 500/500 read/write for less than $150 @ google.com!

Click to expand...

Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be! Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time! That is totally worth the money.

And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them. Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings. Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.

And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.

Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be! Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time! That is totally worth the money.

And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them. Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings. Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.

And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.

Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that there is no longer a place in high end systems for a HDD. I have SSD system drives in all my machines and I can tell you it is not about boot times. No HDD configuration, no matter how fast it might be, can match even an entry level SSD in latency and access times which is what improves the user experience much more than just sequential read and write.

As for gaming, my gaming rig has an Agility 3 SSD for the windows drive, and a RAID0 of Caviar Black HDD for storing the game files and VM's.

Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be! Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time! That is totally worth the money.

And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them. Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings. Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.

And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.

Click to expand...

Both of us know that SSD is not for everyone, and its clearly not for you. Why try to defend that "SSD is no good" because it doesn't fit your expectations, needs or wants?

No one is suggesting that there is no longer a place in high end systems for a HDD. I have SSD system drives in all my machines and I can tell you it is not about boot times. No HDD configuration, no matter how fast it might be, can match even an entry level SSD in latency and access times which is what improves the user experience much more than just sequential read and write.

As for gaming, my gaming rig has an Agility 3 SSD for the windows drive, and a RAID0 of Caviar Black HDD for storing the game files and VM's.

I guess you didn't read that I've had several SSDs. It does not improve the experience, Windows isn't any more reacitive, most programs don't even open any faster. As I said, with a mechanical drive most programs, including large ones like the Adobe programs, open in under 5 seconds. There isn't much improving on that, certainly not enough to justify spending any money on it.

And the capacity issue does come into play, the point of the SSD it to make things faster, if most of my programs are stored on a mechanical drive anyway, how is the SSD helping beyond boot time?

Both of us know that SSD is not for everyone, and its clearly not for you. Why try to defend that "SSD is no good" because it doesn't fit your expectations, needs or wants?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying the SSD is no good, I'm saying the money can usually be spent elsewhere. If there is nothing else you can upgrade in your computer, then by all means get an SSD. But in most cases an SSD is a poor upgrade choice.

I guess you didn't read that I've had several SSDs. It does not improve the experience, Windows isn't any more reacitive, most programs don't even open any faster. As I said, with a mechanical drive most programs, including large ones like the Adobe programs, open in under 5 seconds. There isn't much improving on that, certainly not enough to justify spending any money on it.

And the capacity issue does come into play, the point of the SSD it to make things faster, if most of my programs are stored on a mechanical drive anyway, how is the SSD helping beyond boot time?

I'm not saying the SSD is no good, I'm saying the money can usually be spent elsewhere. If there is nothing else you can upgrade in your computer, then by all means get an SSD. But in most cases an SSD is a poor upgrade choice.

Click to expand...

It coems down to what you use your system for. Because it is hard to deny the fact that hard drives can be the biggest bottleneck for any system. Day in and Day out a hard drive will be the slowest component of a computer. You put an SSD in and that bottleneck is close to gone.

If you are someone who needs a shit ton of storage and stuff then yeah and SSD isn't for you but typically people nowadays have a small SSD just for windows and then 1TB drives or whatever for games and programs and whatever else.

It coems down to what you use your system for. Because it is hard to deny the fact that hard drives can be the biggest bottleneck for any system. Day in and Day out a hard drive will be the slowest component of a computer. You put an SSD in and that bottleneck is close to gone.

If you are someone who needs a shit ton of storage and stuff then yeah and SSD isn't for you but typically people nowadays have a small SSD just for windows and then 1TB drives or whatever for games and programs and whatever else.

Click to expand...

That is my point though, if you have to load all your programs from a mechanical drive anyway than they aren't loading or operating any faster, and the SSD is useless. Like I said, paying $150 just to have Windows load faster is a complete waste of money. Once Windows is loaded everything is pretty much instant when clicked on, the user experience is pretty much unchanged with an SSD.